What changes will "da Pope" bring to "da Vatican"? Is this proof God has a sense of humor, besides the platypus, blobfish and 45,000 christian denominations all claiming to be led by the Holy Ghost?
The sage does affirm that women should receive the same liberal education as men — but recognizes that men and women are suited for different kinds of work, since men are most often physically stronger. My point was that Musonius anticipates pretty much every facet of Catholic moral theology, maintaining that the only legitimate sexual relations are those that occur within marriage with the purpose of procreating children. He specifically condemns homosexual acts as contrary to nature, etc., etc. I won’t go into the details unless you ask me to.
You’ll find that there’s also a lot of support for this position in Hinduism, especially Vishnuism.
Because you still haven’t set aside the fundamentalism of your upbringing, you view Catholic moral theology as some weird and singular aberration — whereas in reality it is just the conservative philosophical position maintained by those who accept Christian revelation, those who simply believe in a personal God, those who believe in a pantheon, and those who believe in an impersonal universal order. I’m not claiming that this historical reality proves Catholicism, or Stoicism, or Vishnuism correct on such matters. But it does prove that Pope Leo is not the source of this viewpoint.
And I’m sure you won’t care.
In practical terms, expect Leo to be a liberal along the lines of Francis. He won’t change any teachings that you object to but he will deemphasize them. The difference is that Prevost appears to be a lot smarter than Bergoglio. Princes of the Church typically have pretty high IQs. Bergoglio was an exception. Wojtyla was a multifaceted genius. Leo is a mathematician and polyglot.
I enjoy your atheism, Michael — but mostly when it has the character of the Miltonic Satan, shaking its fist at the Almighty and vowing eternal enmity. Making jokes about the papal prick, and stooping to false rhymes in the process… well, this one reader can only shrug.
I have a lower opinion of Emily Dickinson than most casual commentators. Pretty much all of her poems can be sung to the tune of “The Yellow Rose of Texas.” And most should be. My sister is a big fan, though.
Wilfred Owen’s rhymes are of a different character. He is not loose but rather rigorous in the application of an original scheme. He strives for the exact reflection of a consonant pattern — e.g., “skill” with “skull” with “school,” etc. This requires discipline. And self-discipline is what verse is all about. However, Owen is a poet of limited thematic range.
Is there an advantage for the sculptor in using marble rather than clay? If not, why did the greatest scuptors work in marble? It was hard labor. Maybe it would have made more sense to switch over to Play-Do….
The Innocence of Leo
Has Pope Leo been caught up in crime?
Has he wasted humanity’s time?
Well, it’s possible. Sure.
But in one way he’s pure:
he has not offered up a false rhyme.
TR
Will Pope Leo give up sexism, homophobia, calling contraception a "sin", etc.?
If not, we will have to be content with small favors.
"Same as it ever was..."
Have you read Musonius Rufus, Michael?
A bit.
I seem to remember Rufus thinking women should be equal to men, thus not a fan of Pope Leo.
The sage does affirm that women should receive the same liberal education as men — but recognizes that men and women are suited for different kinds of work, since men are most often physically stronger. My point was that Musonius anticipates pretty much every facet of Catholic moral theology, maintaining that the only legitimate sexual relations are those that occur within marriage with the purpose of procreating children. He specifically condemns homosexual acts as contrary to nature, etc., etc. I won’t go into the details unless you ask me to.
You’ll find that there’s also a lot of support for this position in Hinduism, especially Vishnuism.
Because you still haven’t set aside the fundamentalism of your upbringing, you view Catholic moral theology as some weird and singular aberration — whereas in reality it is just the conservative philosophical position maintained by those who accept Christian revelation, those who simply believe in a personal God, those who believe in a pantheon, and those who believe in an impersonal universal order. I’m not claiming that this historical reality proves Catholicism, or Stoicism, or Vishnuism correct on such matters. But it does prove that Pope Leo is not the source of this viewpoint.
And I’m sure you won’t care.
In practical terms, expect Leo to be a liberal along the lines of Francis. He won’t change any teachings that you object to but he will deemphasize them. The difference is that Prevost appears to be a lot smarter than Bergoglio. Princes of the Church typically have pretty high IQs. Bergoglio was an exception. Wojtyla was a multifaceted genius. Leo is a mathematician and polyglot.
I enjoy your atheism, Michael — but mostly when it has the character of the Miltonic Satan, shaking its fist at the Almighty and vowing eternal enmity. Making jokes about the papal prick, and stooping to false rhymes in the process… well, this one reader can only shrug.
I would prefer for you not to make ass-umptions about me.
I have moved vastly beyond my fundamentalist upbringing.
If you believe in a personal god, divine revelation, etc., then you are the one still mired in fundamentalism. Not me.
I would not say such a thing, except for your ass-umption.
I prefer to keep things civil.
Fi du rhythme commode,
Comme un soulier trop grand,
Du mode
Que tout pied quitte et prend!
—Gautier
Some poets I know prefer corsets and straitjackets. ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------
The Beat Goes On (and On and On and On ...)
by Michael R. Burch
-------------------------
Bored stiff by his board-stiff attempts
at “meter,” I crossly concluded
I’d use each iamb
in lieu of a lamb,
bedtimes when I’m under-quaaluded.
Yes. The rule that liberates, as your friend Richard Moore called it. I would rather commit a felony than a false rhyme.
Are you a perfect rhymer, like Richard?
I did catch him in a few imperfect rhymes.
I am indeed. Of course, that was always the ideal. I’ve grown more stringent over the years.
So what do you think of imperfect rhymers like Emily Dickinson and Wilfred Owen?
Is there any advantage to your stringency?
I have a lower opinion of Emily Dickinson than most casual commentators. Pretty much all of her poems can be sung to the tune of “The Yellow Rose of Texas.” And most should be. My sister is a big fan, though.
Wilfred Owen’s rhymes are of a different character. He is not loose but rather rigorous in the application of an original scheme. He strives for the exact reflection of a consonant pattern — e.g., “skill” with “skull” with “school,” etc. This requires discipline. And self-discipline is what verse is all about. However, Owen is a poet of limited thematic range.
Is there an advantage for the sculptor in using marble rather than clay? If not, why did the greatest scuptors work in marble? It was hard labor. Maybe it would have made more sense to switch over to Play-Do….